These are the most up-to-date conclusions of these physics, a basis of understanding this entire website (1/22/2016) <-- the day after tomorrow's date!

​Very interesting and COMPELLING developments ...

Gravity Cancellation defeats Special Relativity's limitations ...

I can't edit parts of this website so this is where it stands primarily.

Gravity Cancellation may change a lot of previous assumptions and eliminate a lot of needless paradoxes as a clear mechanism for warp drive* travel to other star systems.

It appears that warp drive however is not quite the achievement, but something much faster.

The OTC-X1 developments will put all of this to the real test.

Here is a brief summary of what has developed, and where everything else will lead:

Frequency determines time. ... independently of gravity, but gravity frequency not only is at high frequency, but .. too much inertial density, so it slows INERTIA down, but not necessarily slows time (frequency) down.

​Inertia is like how time moves, because it is inertia which is moving; inertia is more of a fabric of the entire universe of space/time, then it is something strictly belonging to space. There is no time.

Shape of the gravity well stretches to a fine tip at the end, seeing the graph of a gravity well of a black hole; but in lower gravity star systems, the graph of the well has a cup to it, rather than a tip to it. If it had a tip to it, it would be a graph toward infinity (black hole), but not with a finite mass. This shows time is faster closer to a gravity source because the frequency is faster then it is to the outer perimeter of a gravity field. There is a special case that deals with this though; Special Relativity shows the opposite. See the Graph Below.

It is not time that is faster in deep space, it is inertia! Time is even faster near a star's gravity center, but the inertial forces of gravitation oppose the natural higher Light-Frequencies that have been expanded to create a "Star System." The frequencies in deep space should be slower, but since there isn't much inertial mass, it allows for very rapid movement because time is faster, practically.

A gravity lens actually magnifies distant light through the gravity field of the star system because of literally how gravity changes the shape of inertial space. Even though frequency generally increases closer to a gravitational source, the transverse "angle" of spacetime is a natural inversion. Gravity changes the shape due to density shift of spacetime.

Gravity Cancellation is a viable mechanism allowed by Special Relativity allowing for warp drive. It cancels inertia so that a ship moves faster in time and faster than light.

...

Since frequency is higher around a gravity source, but the frequencies in deep space are slower but less dense allowing for rapid travel from star-to-star, which equates to a higher speed in time, a starship can move MUCH faster in deep space then in a star system, if not being able to hop from one star system to another due to two things: zero inertia, and its frequency. In light-space, frequency is an inward expanse. Expanding into negative space, moving through itself and out the other side, has a range which is similar to how a star system creates and expands a frequency space from around a zero point. Imagine being anywhere and everywhere in that exotic energy field all at once, like how an electron exists in a probability of location within an energy field made of light. Observation creates reality; you have to be certain of where you are in the field, and where you expect to find yourself.

Honestly, I think the paradox of time and space is best traversed in Light space, where Light is Unity, and where the annoyance of the paradox of time and space and relativity is avoided altogether. In Light space, distances should be able to be traversed near-simultaneously, and it's more realistic to assume this the case, a mere matter of seconds to another star.

​The new Warp Drive News update has an unusual ending, I'll admit, which is the reason I'm adding this update article (that and because I can't edit that page anymore). It's hard to get grounded after something like that, but perhaps that's why it's written the way it is. I find it very interesting, and I don't quite understand it, but I can see some ramifications to it, and it ended in a way that I have learned which may be a little one-sided. I want to point out that another star system may not be directly connected through time and space to our own. That is to say, one would pass through parallel dimensions and end up where one may not find any life at all on the distant world, and perhaps it would be in a different location than expected.

You have to find the right "frequency space" of that planet through time and space, because you are side-ways in time, in parallel space, as you travel between star systems.

The really cool part though about that strange ending, is that according to Special Relativity, if you were right there near an Event Horizon, you really WOULD see everything away from the black hole moving fast in time. I say both instances are correct in regard to a peculiar point of view though, akin to resonance. Whatever frequency you vibrate at, is the frequency you will see in the world. However it explains also why people find polarized opposites according to their frequency, in day-to-day life. There is a mechanism to explain that, but it's strict metaphysics.

If you are existing in an independent light-space, where reality is folded through your own frequency, as in the case of the gravity cancellation engine, then your own frequency will determine the parallel reality that you experience. You affect your own temporal causality. A light space frequency affects a range of probability space (quantum zero), and possible parallel histories, in a rage depending on frequency, all at once.

​Time can be altered elsewhere, but if you are unaware of it, all information will appear filtered through your own frequency. You can absorb frequency or emit frequency. Both ways at once.

We perceive the other stars as red-shifted because that is the reflection of our own star system's frequency.

That's the part that sucks about relativity is the A AND B, which requires the most honor, though, and can be the most fun, though. However through Light Space, Temporal Relativity may apply.

​We see the age our our universe, but it is the frequency of our own star that we perceive, our sun's age reflected back by the universe, because we have been here long enough for 13 billion years of light to reach us -- our own age; our own frequencies determine what we perceive . . .

That just above is METAPHYSICS! That involves the paradox of the One and the All, and Creation!

But now it has a solid grounds in Physics! That is to say, it surprises the heck out of me that the new Warp Drive News update article (up top of its page) actually took a straight path from the solution from Special Relativity all the way to ... well I'm calling it "Temporal Relativity" for the lack of a better word, which is strict metaphysics BUT has AWESOME RAMIFICATIONS!

I did not really understand what was going on there, until I worked through the disciplines that I have learned. Seems it came automatic to me, and it took me a while to understand what it was, which eventually lead me to writing THIS article ABOUT the update(s) (that and the editor broke, but that';s OK).

​I would love to just leave it up to the reader at this point and just keep up with the latest OTC-X1 updates, at this point.

​Now that the universe is unlocked and unveiled for us. It's a lot to think about.

​

​This chart may look familiar, it's on the Warp Drive Blog page.This shows the nature of a Gravity Lens, generally, but in reverse. Time is slower toward the center of the star system and faster around the edges, and for the same reasons. In a gravity lens, light enters the system, slows down, and speeds up as it leaves, but is accelerated in frequency, but it has an effect in time and space. As light (from a distant galaxy) enters the system, the distance is shortened that it has to travel, due to the star-system's frequency, magnifying it.

Another way to look at it, the frequency of space is denser and acts as an "inertial lens," or a "space lens" on light. Nature shows us the way through a manner of resonance with the star-frequency to amplify or magnify the light from a distant galaxy.

Notice that if Light were truly at the 45 degree angle as shown in the chart, all of future time intersects just a little ways into the future of the worldline of the gravity system. It's a little out of proportion but it should be seen that the relativity graphs that we use today all show the existence of finite star systems, ending at some point in the future and exiting time-space. That's just not true, and I realize we have gotten a lot of things backwards due to Relativity.

This is why light should be as the Y axis, whereas Time has no axis. But that could redefine the nature of the chart a little, and I'd like to stick with SOME kind of recognizable physics like Special Relativity.

I'm not saying that Special Relativity is wrong, because there goes the proof of warp drive! However, if Special Relativity is wrong, then these physics would end up correcting itself.

​

The thing to note:

Note the deceleration of time as space enters the gravity well. Note the acceleration of time at the maximum value of the gravity-system's mass. Regardless, the deceleration of time as space enters the system is temporary and because of the curvature of a faster flow of time in-system is realized, it shows one thing:The future is reached faster.

Also, the depth of the gravity well equates to the gravity system's mass. Gravity; Spacetime is a wave so we'll see more of a toroid or elliptical shape, so it won't have a peak at the bottom (a tip) because inertia won't suddenly change its vector (the center of a star is a relative gravitational zero). In the case of a black hole the curve is VERY STEEP, and may result in a point (discontinuity in spacetime).

The chart above however does show the relation a black hole would have in time at the Event Horizon, which is the "future infinite convergence of time," or rather the light cone tipped so that the sides are also part of the Event Horizon. So this would have to be the relativity chart of a spaceship.

Unfortunately, the chart above has to be regarded GENERALLY, and from point of view only, because the nature of the chart reverses depending on being inside the curved space or outside. Looking from inside to outside, there is an acceleration curve of time. Looking from outside to inside, there is a deceleration curve of time (longer distance to see also due to time dilation frequencies). That's the nature of a simple lens, as well. That actually is how we observe a black hole however, where time slows down near the hole but is faster around the hole. Looking toward the hole, time slows down (decelerates), looking away from the hole time is sped up (acceleration). So that's the truth but we are left with the assumption which is totally backwards which depends upon time being faster closer to the gravity source, regardless!

​

Regarding the chart:

The chart above is a Relativity chart (General and/or Special Relativity).

Even though you are actually seeing into the past (the Gravity Well drops into the past, down on the Y axis), what you are seeing has future acceleration (time comes off at right angles to the curvature of space according to Relativity). That is why a black hole is regarded as having very slow time when we look at it from a distance, is because of how the axis of time tips along the gravity well, which obviously would make it blink out of spacetime altogether and it wouldn't have ever existed in the first place.

There are elements of Relativity which are true, however.

We are able to detect rapid acceleration around a black hole, and so right around its Event Horizon, frequency is super-accelerated to where matter orbiting a black hole is blue-shifted in the light spectrum (very, very fast!). It is an inversion in space and time. And at some point there will be a gravity cancellation at 90 degrees to the black hole's spin compared to orbiting matter's rotation, so there may be bands or rings of varying time flows, but at very pronounced ranges.

This means depending on your inertial angle, looking at it from top down, or from the side (the accretion disk), you will see either faster time, or slower time.

AND FINALLY:

Regarding the "Light time Adjustments and Stargate Travel" article just below the Warp Drive News update:

​Hint: Read it like you're in the perspective of flying in a starship with a high time frequency and a bit of a negative mass acceleration (so it's faster in time, because it has less inertia) ... THAT should equate it with Special Relativity, through the mechanism of "Gravity Cancellation."

I bet the physics change per frequency adjustment.

. . .

The nature of time and frequency is a real paradox. That's what makes all this so complicated to be absolutely sure about!

Here is the final verdict:

When General Relativity says more mass is more energy, and energy is in frequency, then time should be faster. And that is what we record with the spaceships in orbit with slower clocks.

Special Relativity says oh no no no, it's not like that, but Generally, it is so. GPS satellites show a slightly faster time, which is why Gravity Cancellation as a warp drive mechanism solves that dilemma of Relativity EFFORTLESSLY.

In higher frequency, the physics DO change relatively, and so that is why I'm claiming that Generally a faster frequency of energy of mass and inertia (more mass; higher acceleration) means faster time, and that is actually true because when Gravity is cancelled, there remains faster time IN AN ENGINE; and so that's how I prefer to treat Relativity, from higher frequencies fields. In higher frequencies, density actually changes WHEN IT IS A FREQUENCY SHIFT TOWARD LIGHT, INSTEAD OF GRAVITY.

SO. I'm sticking with that, in that generally, more mass ENERGY equates to faster FREQUENCY (matter spins) in time, but just slightly because we can measure the difference with orbiting spaceships. They just don't have enough mass, and they're in a unique frame of inertial reference that Earth isn't! If they were moving at near light speeds then there will be much higher mass (inertia / gravity equivalence). <-- General Relativity

HOWEVER, Special Relativity is in concern to a special case of Relativity, and it has always been so! A Special Case of Relativity is not generally how it all is. Mainstream science is SO CONCERNED about that special case, though!

That means that the basis of "Light Time and Stargate adjustments" article is true according to General Relativity, or rather and much better put: according to Relativity, GENERALLY.

The Most Important Bit Ever:

There are several interesting aspects concerning relativity, including an aspect of parallel spacetime, and aspects of metaphysics which interests me, and with only being 80% sure of the engineering of the OTC-X1 and Outer Ring Drive, I want to keep focused on the reality that the engines are going to produce, that of a higher frequency with a negative inertia of mass (not necessarily negative mass), so that at the very least we will know how the universe moves at warp speed conditions, which is why "light time adjustments" article was written, to explore that particular relative frame of frequency.

The GPS satellites at a higher clock rate though does actually fit with one model, and that's a model that requires Gravity Cancellation (inertial reduction) in order for a warp drive to work (Special Relativity). I don't want to use use that one thing as proof of everything, because there's just a bit more going on than meets the eye with frequency, although perhaps I'm over-analyzing things.

The La Grange point between the gravity of Earth and moon, and the equidistant point where the rate of a satellite's orbit matches the spin of the Earth (Geo-synchronous), they are synonymous in their effect. A satellite at the midpoint between Earth and moon would be at place of gravity cancellation of two gravity fields, so there a satellite would be higher in frequency.

In Geosynchronous orbit, the motion of the satellite is that which matches rate of acceleration (inertia) transverse with the inertia of Earth's gravity precisely so it stays in one spot, and we have a right-angled "cancellation" of gravity (inertial mass forces) at 90 degrees! ... That is in transverse action upon spacetime. It's not in parallel, it is proportional.

I would therefore say that the GPS satellites having a faster clock-rate does indeed prove that gravity cancellation increases time frequency. The GPS satellite is fairly small, but the forces of inertial cancellation are 90 degrees in phase. Radially in a circle with origin at the Central Accumulator in a "satellite orbit" manner, and now there appears to be a further understanding of how the OTC-X1 cancels gravity and its own inertia (and that gravity which acts upon it); and how an engine can negate gravity (brings it into the negative value of Energy -- energy of inertia rather -- as conventional warp drive metrics show). It could look something like the relativity chart above.

That is a SPECIAL case of Relativity.

A 90 degree cancellation of inertial forces does get results! Why test for a warp bubble in the lab when we have GPS satellites we can measure? If you're riding in a much faster bubble of time COMPARED TO THE REST OF SPACETIME, then you can look out the window and see everything moving very slowly away from you.

​It's all about the paradox ... If I had to take the wrong road to get to the destination, but then, there are no absolutes ...

There are multiple concurrent things going on simultaneously in the dimensions of time and space and gravity and light and all that. I'm hoping that with all the pieces, people can connect those pieces to where they are supposed to go to grasp the whole picture, which will be unique to the reader, actually. That way more can grow, and this isn't just "how it is."

I DO want to add Bob Lazar's account of his experimenting on the ET gravity tube. He placed a candle inside the gravity beam and turned the machine on. It appeared that the candle was frozen in time. When they turned the machine off, it was seen that the candle had melted down on the table long ago, showing time actually does accelerate within a gravity field.​​

Last words on this matter:

Honestly, I feel we're barking up the wrong tree by thinking that time will slow down or speed up in the first place. The sun sits where it's at. The ship moves through space (actually, space moves through it). Just on that note alone, gravity is going to warp time. Put it in motion and as the ship moves, time should just balance itself out. The only time Special Relativity even applies is with rockets, or regular objects moving around, but nothing has been tested in a gravity field, in motion, like in a ship. It could very well be that we really have nothing to worry about at all as far as time goes. I'm just not really concerned about the vertical core so much; I think the basic principle of gravity cancellation is enough to go on.

If a probe used gravity to pull itself along through space (actually pulling space through it), why must it be assumed it would be going slower OR faster in time? It's independent in spacetime, in its own "field." How could we even truly measure a difference in time? Special Relativity wouldn't even apply! And besides if there's much faster time in deep space anyway, it wouldn't matter to the pilots, or to the pilots' family on Earth, because if time is faster in deep space as Special Relativity explains, then problem solved! We could fly to another star and return, and not much time would have passed on Earth regardless! Why all the fuss about "oh, time would slow to a crawl the faster something goes;" that is irrelevant when USING GRAVITY to travel!

Traveling through parallel space ... it should by now be obvious that Generally, Relativity applies as it should except for a Special case.

Parallel space is deep space. Transverse space is in star-systems.

Why am I not out right saying HOW Relativity should apply? Because I AM out right saying how Relativity applies.

There's a whole HECK of a lot of work still yet to do; but for now, this is the extent of the information presented in this website.

I'm not concerned about there being a right or a wrong. Obviously BOTH aspects of Relativity, Generally and Specifically apply at the same time. That is a unifiable paradox.

It does not require the Unity to be known, just that the paradox can be seen Clearly. The Unity is the fun stuff! That's the stuff we discover along the way and the adventures we all can have.

There is more that can be known. ... when the time is right ... when the wind blows in that special way ... but for now, let these be the seeds of a new reality.

Anything more at this point, I'm likely to put in a book(s), along with all the stuff I haven't included in the website, but I will actually come out with it "spelled out" in a book(s) much more than it can be on a public website.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

LAU

Updates and Design Improvements; Further Understanding and Applicability